“Section 4(1)”

LIC HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI

DTVSV Act. The refund\nin the case of the assessee has arisen while giving such effect. The appellant\ndeclarant, while making declarations under Section 4(1) thereof has\nexpressly and unreservedly made declarations waiving its rights, whether\ndirect or indirect and whether available to him under any law including

LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are\nallowed

DTVSV Act. The refund\nin the case of the assessee has arisen while giving such effect. The appellant\ndeclarant, while making declarations under Section 4(1) thereof has\nexpressly and unreservedly made declarations waiving its rights, whether\ndirect or indirect and whether available to him under any law including

LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

DTVSV Act. The refund in the case of the assessee has arisen while giving such effect. The appellant declarant, while making declarations under Section 4(1) thereof has expressly and unreservedly made declarations waiving its rights, whether direct or indirect and whether available to him under any law including

ASCENDAS PANVEL FTWZ PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the above terms

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

proviso to sub-section (4) of section 3 and sub-section (1) of section 4, including a Free Trade and Zone. (iv) Section 4(1) provides that the Developer shall submit exact particulars of the identified area to the Central Government and upon satisfaction of the prescribed requirements, the Government

ASCENDAS PANVEL FTWZ PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed in the above terms

Trade and\n13\nITA No.701/Mum/2025 and others\nAscendas Panvel FTWZ Private Limited\nWarehousing Zone, and includes an existing Special Economic\nZone.\n(iv) Section 4(1) provides that the Developer shall submit exact\nparticulars of the identified area to the Central Government and\nupon satisfaction of the prescribed requirements

ASCENDAS PANVEL FTWZ PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed in the above terms

Trade and\n12\nITA No.701/Mum/2025 and others\nAscendas Panvel FTWZ Private Limited\nWarehousing Zone, and includes an existing Special Economic\nZone.\n(iv) Section 4(1) provides that the Developer shall submit exact\nparticulars of the identified area to the Central Government and\nupon satisfaction of the prescribed requirements

SMT. SHREE JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, we hold that

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsmt. Shree Jain, 17/1, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Anurag Ali Asker Rod, Off. Tax, Central Circle-5(2), Mumbai. Chunningham Road, 1/24, Room No.634, Aayakar Bhawan, Marsh Bangalore-560052. Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020. Pan/Gir No:Aarpj4573A (Appellant) (Respondent)

held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Tarulata Shyam vs. CIT 108 ITR 345 (SC), two principles deductible from section 4(1) are: (i) that the tax is levied on the total income of the assessee and (ii) each previous years is a distinct unit of time

MRS. DEEPALI VIKKI AJMERA,MULUND vs. ITO WARD 27(1)(1), MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2020-21 Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Ito Ward 27 (1) (1), 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Tower 6, Vashi Station Ambedkar, Road Opp. Balaji Vs. Complex, Navi Mumbai – Temple, Mulund West, Mumbai 400703. – 400080. Pan – Agvps 7279 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna, Ca (Virtually Appear) Revenue By : Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 281 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal, On Which The Assessee Has Claimed As Under :- Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay 1, Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Age About 45 Years, Residing At 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Ambedkar Road, Opp Balaji Temple

source or paid in advance, where it is so deductible or payable under any provision of this Act." 4.1.1 On perusal of Section 4(1) of I.T. Act, it is obvious that in the year under consideration, no addition can be made in respect of investments in property made ... made before or after the relevant previous year are immaterial in assessing income of a particular year, unless in accordance with proviso to Section 4(1) of I.T. Act, there is statutory provision to the contrary, authorizing income of a period other than the previous year under consideration

DCIT CC 4(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHRI GANESH JAGAJI MODI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the above appeals of the assessee and\nthe Cross appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical\npurposes

since we\nare not upholding and applying the ex -factory prices, as we find them\ncontravened and not normal price as envisaged under section 4(1), we\nfind no reason to disturb the Commissioner's orders. On appeal, the\nHon'ble Apex Court was of the view that the failure

DCIT CC 4(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHRI GANESH JAGAJI MODI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the above appeals of the assessee and the Cross appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Prabhash Shankar

since we are not upholding and applying the ex -factory prices, as we find them contravened and not normal price as envisaged under section 4(1), we find no reason to disturb the Commissioner’s orders. On appeal, the Hon'ble Apex Court was of the view that the failure

GANESH MODI,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the above appeals of the assessee and the Cross appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Prabhash Shankar

since we are not upholding and applying the ex -factory prices, as we find them contravened and not normal price as envisaged under section 4(1), we find no reason to disturb the Commissioner’s orders. On appeal, the Hon'ble Apex Court was of the view that the failure

GANESH J MODI,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the above appeals of the assessee and the Cross appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Prabhash Shankar

since we are not upholding and applying the ex -factory prices, as we find them contravened and not normal price as envisaged under section 4(1), we find no reason to disturb the Commissioner’s orders. On appeal, the Hon'ble Apex Court was of the view that the failure